Talk:Architectural history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.

Architecture Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Architectural history as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.

This page used to be a redirect to architectural style, but I turned it into an autonomous stub. The reason why: many historical evolutions in architecture can't be fit into 'styles', most importantly in the 20th Century; and it would be good to have a set of pages that 'tell the story of architecture' in full text (as is the case with art history). It's a lot of work, but should be rewarding... Spinster 16:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, this page should be split up, leave an intro paragraph for each section and then link to the full article. There is already a so called 'architectual history' series that contains links to pages named simmilarly to the sections here. I don't think its a template, and for the moment its on the Islamic architecture page, however all but the link to its self is dead. Coolhoot 02:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1 Critical Regionalism Vs post modernism.
2 Russian architecture
3 Whole article is slanted
4 architectural history: main article
5 History is not whole
6 Not only greece or rome had a history of architecture
7 "Islamic" or "Western"?
8 Sections
9 Very Simplistic
10 Indian gallery moved from main page after revert

[edit] Critical Regionalism Vs post modernism.

I'm not so sure that the critical regionalism movement should be under "modernism and beyond," but I'm sure that it doesn't belong under post-modernism. it's a response to local conditions, with a nod to modern technology, but it isn't a reaction to modernism at all. infact some critical regionalist designs can be quite modern. --naught101 00:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russian architecture

Please comment on the dispute at talk:Russian architecture. Some editors contend that examples of architecture of medieval Kievan Rus which lie in the territory of modern Ukraine may not be mentioned in an article entitled "Russian architecture". Other editors contend that the article is neutral as written. Please help resolve this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-5 21:30 Z

[edit] Whole article is slanted

This article needs to be rewritten without this focus on 'critical theory'. Too much is given over to theory. While architectural history naturally has to contend with the theortical problems surrounding the writing and interpretation of history, the article in its current form gives far too much weight to what may be considered a marginal theoretical problem. The contributions of architectural historians, people like Summerson, Watkin, Pevsner, etc. need to be given much more attention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.6.51 (talk • contribs) .
We should at least remember that Pevsner is beyond out of date when we think about this problem...Fixifex 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] architectural history: main article

The first article of the series Architecural history that acts as the heading is very questionable. It makes bold unsupported claims about roman architecture in contrast to greek architecture being somehow displaced from reality. It suggests that roman architecture has lost the social power of public spaces to the construction of ornamental facades..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.39.241 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] History is not whole

Two types of widespread buildings need be somehow categorized. The North American subarban house is neither modernist nor regionalist. Most office buildings and shopping centers until postmodernism are surely not modernist either. The New Urbanist movement should be added. It differs from critical regionalism. Surely many more buildings have already been built under new urbanist priciples than under deconstructivist principles (deconstructivism is expensive and technology dependant, so it's not that widely practiced)

[edit] Not only greece or rome had a history of architecture

the main history of archetecture should not be emphasised in the greece,rome and western europe.It is just one style of architecture,not the whole!

I think if you read the article again you will see that eastern architecture is represented under headings for chinese indian islamic etc. greco roman architecture is relevent to western architecture and so are represented as subheadings of western architecture - i've removed the npov tag.--Mcginnly | Natter 09:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean there are a sub-entry Regional architecture which classify all the so-called regional history in contrast to Western architecture.How can Western architecture stand for the main history of architect and others only represent the Regional history？Ksyrie 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! thanks for the clarification - that makes more sense now. Yeah the Regional architecture section at the end of the article is a bit of a peculiarity. I'll have a think about how the article could be better structured, but clearly writing the architectural history of every country in the world on one page is not going to be practical and regional trends might be a better approach.--Mcginnly | Natter 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should rename the article History of western architecture and cover other cultures only when they have an effect on western architecture. -- Petri Krohn 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer the encyclopedia to have an overview of global architectural history; Curtis, Fletcher, Cropplestone have all managed it - I think it's a worthy aspiration, but needs some thought as to how it might be best handled. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the difference between Architecture and buildings? I think that the old litteratur like Vitruvius, Alberti etc. have been the first to use the term Architecture. Thats the reason that western architecture must have more space than other forms. You have to pick the essentiel about the term architecture and then tell about other forms and other cultures. You will find western forms in new shapes in most of the countries in the world. The value of others cultures buildings must not be the main in this article because the term architecture are made in western society. Treating all the same will be wrong because the influence are not equale.--Nina-no 15:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Islamic" or "Western"?

Just a question: If Sassanian, Byzantine, Sumerian and Egyptian architecture are to be counted as "Western", why is not the Islamic architecture – which is mainly the outcome of the former?

[edit] Sections

Rather than splitting this article into sections which are just précis of the main articles, couldn't it treat with the whole history of architecture; its more or less linear development, if there is such a thing; and if not, its themes, with stated comparisons rather than insulated blocks of text? Njál 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Simplistic

Students of archtiectural history should be warned that the page is quite simplistic. Hopefully soon, someone will step up to produce a more sophisticated introduction into architectural history.Wolfensberger 19 Nov 2006